No, just see the other comment right below:
You should be free to do this yourself or to seek the advice of those you've chosen to trust on scientific (or any other) matters.
As to your comment about the financial industry: it's inapplicable because it's not a free market. In a free market, there would be no Federal Reserve, no Fannie or Freddie to distort the market. Immoral firms such as Goldman Sachs would have nothing to take advantage of.
Gotta go, but on that whole federal reserve thing, go take a look at the boom/bust cycle in the US prior to and after establishing the federal reserve.
Again, it's not about what you find ideologically satisfying, it's about what actually works in the real world.
EDIT: btw, the fed and fannie/freddy had almost zero to do with the housing crisis. The problem was the multiplied leverage much more than the housing debt itself, and fannie/freddy's rules about loans to minorities only affected a miniscule % of total defaults.
Actually, it's got to be both. Being smart is being able to correctly predict things, and that requires both theory and empirical observations. While everyone has some sort of philosophy, some philosophies are better in the real world than others.
To his point, in the last 30 years, we've slashed taxes for the rich and really slashed welfare. Shouldn't the poor be picking themselves up by their bootstraps by now? Or is something a little more robust than "I don't even need to know the details, the problem is SOCIALISM and the solution is FREEDOM" required?
And meanwhile, none of this has anything to do with the very real problem of FDA regulatory reform. You haven't laid out the first reason why I wouldn't be poisoned by a bottle of cough syrup from duane reade or why it should be on me vs the drug company to prove that their cough syrup is safe.
I suppose we could always have a company that was in charge of rating drugs, and the drug companies could pay them for ratings, like AAA and BBB. I mean, it works for the financial industry, right?